URGENT:UN Arms Treaty and Obama says, "Guns are just for hunting and target shooting"

URGENT:UN Arms Treaty and Obama says, "Guns are just for hunting and target shooting"

Here is a link to the treaty, and folks it is not good for our gun rights. Pay close attention, it says the rights of the state participating throughout the document, not the right of individuals of the state. Here is an example of how this will destroy our right to own and bear arms:

Article 11
Reporting, Record Keeping and Transparency

"Each State Party shall MAINTAIN RECORDS in accordance with its national laws and regardless of the items referred to in Article 2, Paragraph A, with regards to conventional arms authorization or exports, and where feasible of those items transferred to their territory as the final destination, or that are authorized to transit or transship their territory, respectively.

Such records may contain: quantity, value, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), recipient State(s), and END USERS as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or consistent with other international commitments applicable to the State Party."

From Article 8:

"State Parties shall put in place adequate measures that will allow them, where necessary, to monitor and control imports of items covered by the scope of the Treaty. State Parties shall also adopt appropriate measures to prevent the diversion of imported items to UNAUTHORIZED END USERS or to the ILLICIT MARKET."

Note how it states the "illicit market" and "unauthorized end users." Do you know who the unauthorized end users are? Citizens of every state (state means country)!

From Article 6:

"State Parties involved in a transfer of conventional arms shall, in a manner consistent with the principles of this Treaty, take appropriate measures to prevent diversion to the ILLICIT MARKET or to UNAUTHORIZED END USERS. All State Parties shall cooperate, as appropriate, with the exporting State to that end." Again, illicit market and unauthorized end users.

Folks this is not only keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals (illicit market), but also the citizens (unauthorized end users).

From Article 2:

"- 2. This Treaty shall not apply to the international movement of conventional arms by a State Party or its agents for its armed forces or law enforcement authorities operating outside its national territories, provided they remain under the State Party’s ownership."

Not even military and law enforcement will be allowed to own private firearms. They must be owned and maintained by the STATE!!

From Article 1 (I believe it speaks for itself).

Article 1
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

"Cognizant of the need to prevent and combat the diversion of conventional arms into the illicit market or to UNAUTHORIZED END USERS through the improvement of regulation on the international trade in conventional arms,

The GOALS AND OBJECTIVES of this Treaty are:

- For States Parties to establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving regulation of the international trade in conventional arms;

- To prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and their diversion to illegal and UNAUTHORIZED END USE;"

From Aricle 13:

IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT UNIT

"This Treaty hereby establishes an Implementation Support Unit to assist States Parties in its implementation.
The ISU shall consist of adequate staff, with necessary expertise to ensure the mandate entrusted to it can be effectively undertaken, with the core costs funded by States Parties.
The implementation Support Unit, within a minimized structure and responsible to States Parties, shall undertake the responsibilities assigned to it in this Treaty, inter alia:
Receive distribute reports, on behalf of the Depository, and make them publicly available;
Maintain and Distribute regularly to States Parties the up-to-date list of national contact points;
Facilitate the matching of offers and requests of assistance for Treaty implementation and promote international cooperation as requested;
Facilitate the work of the Conference of States Parties, including making arrangements and providing the necessary service es for meetings under this Treaty; and
Perform other duties as mandated by the Conference of States Parties."

Is this scary enough now? Foreign police on our soil!

From Article 16:

"8. References to “State Parties” in the present Treaty shall apply to such organizations within the limits of their competence."

Notice it says nothing about individuals!

From Article 19:

Reservations

"Each State party, in exercising its national sovereignty, may formulate reservations UNLESS the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of this Treaty."

Folks, just look at the monument in front of the UN building in NYC. The Colt Python with the twisted barrel says it all!

Obama says it is time for gun control, and that he believes most gun owners would agree that we have no right to own firearms like the AK-47! It is getting real people, it is time we stand up and do something about this!

Here is a link to the whole UN ATT:

http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-un-caught-infringing-on-individual-rights-in-gun-treaty/

This will make it impossible to get a firearm, and will not only destroy the import of arms into the U.S., it will certainly destroy the import of arms from state to state within the U.S. Contact your Senators TODAY!

"Obama says it is time for gun control, and that he believes most gun owners would agree that we have no right to own firearms like the AK-47! It is getting real people, it is time we stand up and do something about this!"

He did not say this. Here is his exact quote, if anyone is interested in accuracy:

"I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation -- that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.

"But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals; that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn't be controversial. They should be common sense."

If we are going to raise the alarm about infringement, we can make our case without breitbarting.

beebobby said:

"Obama says it is time for gun control, and that he believes most gun owners would agree that we have no right to own firearms like the AK-47! It is getting real people, it is time we stand up and do something about this!"

He did not say this. Here is his exact quote, if anyone is interested in accuracy:

"I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation -- that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.

"But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals; that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn't be controversial. They should be common sense."

If we are going to raise the alarm about infringement, we can make our case without breitbarting.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read my statement in the other thread! You want accuracy, how about you detail the meaning of what was said. He said that these firerms belong in the hands of SOLDIERS, SOLDIERS, SOLDIERS, SOLDIERS, SOLDIERS! I am certain a soldier is not an ordinary citizen! If he would have said that AKs belong in the hands of law abiding citizens it would have been different, but he didn't! We need to understand what is actually being said, instead of taking a statement at face value! I believe anyone on this forum is intelligent enough to realize the difference beteween a soldier and a citizen! I believe that AKs belong in the hands of law abiding citizens, and soldiers, not just soldiers!

You supported Obama and now he is speaking what we have known was always on his mind! There is no need to get offensive just because you have been proven wrong and we have been right all along! The President does not believe in our right to keep and bear arms, it is proven. Again, look at his record when he was a State senator, it speaks for itself. You can support Obummer all you want, but please don't try to force your illogical opinion on everyone else when it is clearly wrong!

I'm just basing my opinion on his record while in this office and what he has said when he has had a chance to speak to the country. I understand that no matter what he says, he will not change your opinion of what you think he means. He has not come for my guns or ammo and he has stated his support for the individual right to keep and bear arms as per the 2nd amendment. I am a citizen soldier, ready to defend this country, but I carry an AR-15, not a commie AK. I did not feel threatened by his latest statement.

You're entire argument is based in the assumption (you know what they say about assumptions right?) that UNAUTHORIZED END USERS = All private citizens of the state. Your own argument states "Notice it says nothing about individuals!" Nowhere did I see an exact definition of who qualifies as an "unauthorized end user" or even who gets to decide the definition. If anything, this is the part of the treaty that would worry me.

As for registration requirements, I don't know how things work in your neck of the woods, but every time I've purchased a firearm from a licensed FFL, they've run the necessary background check and registered my firearm before I was allowed to leave with my purchase. Business as usual. Whether or not you agree with this practice is one thing, but the treaty doesn't change that.

As to "Foreign police on our soil", the treaty merely establishes the existence of a unit to help participating states implement the provisions of the treaty. No where does it give the unit enforcement powers (it is the UN after all) nor does it mandate that states do anything but pay for the help. It also doesn't state who is on said unit or who gets to decide.

I have seen too many blogs and articles on this subject where the writer openly admits to having no knowledge of the exact wording of the treaty and then proceeds to state his opinion of what the treaty MIGHT say and uses his unfounded speculations to substantiate an argument that Obama is coming for your guns. I'm all for open political discourse but it seriously irks me when people willfully spread misinformation under the guise of substantiated fact. But I guess if it works for the antis it can work for us too right?

AngryBodhi said:

You're entire argument is based in the assumption (you know what they say about assumptions right?) that UNAUTHORIZED END USERS = All private citizens of the state. Your own argument states "Notice it says nothing about individuals!" Nowhere did I see an exact definition of who qualifies as an "unauthorized end user" or even who gets to decide the definition. If anything, this is the part of the treaty that would worry me.

As for registration requirements, I don't know how things work in your neck of the woods, but every time I've purchased a firearm from a licensed FFL, they've run the necessary background check and registered my firearm before I was allowed to leave with my purchase. Business as usual. Whether or not you agree with this practice is one thing, but the treaty doesn't change that.

As to "Foreign police on our soil", the treaty merely establishes the existence of a unit to help participating states implement the provisions of the treaty. No where does it give the unit enforcement powers (it is the UN after all) nor does it mandate that states do anything but pay for the help. It also doesn't state who is on said unit or who gets to decide.

I have seen too many blogs and articles on this subject where the writer openly admits to having no knowledge of the exact wording of the treaty and then proceeds to state his opinion of what the treaty MIGHT say and uses his unfounded speculations to substantiate an argument that Obama is coming for your guns. I'm all for open political discourse but it seriously irks me when people willfully spread misinformation under the guise of substantiated fact. But I guess if it works for the antis it can work for us too right?

Click to expand...

In "my neck of the woods" firearms are not registered. I believe you are mistaking the mandatory background check that an FFL must conduct for some form of

registration. When you purchase a firearm from an FFL, you fill out a form 4473 and they call and have an instant background check conducted on the buyer based on the

information in the 4473. This is a background check and nothing more, and the government does NOT receive information about your firearm like the Serial Number, nor do

they gain any information that would allow them to register your firearm. All they know from the 4473 is whether you are purchasing a Long gun or a Handgun, or possibly

more than one of each, and your personal information. The 4473 form then sets in the business for 20 years, or until the business goes out of business. The firearm is not

registered with the Federal government in any way, and all information that is derived from the check is to be discarded within 24 hours. Your home state may register

firearms, but KY doesn't, nor does the Federal government. I can purchase a firearm in KY from an FFL and I don't even have the instant background check conducted on

me. In KY, if you have a CDWL you are exempted from the check; you just fill out the 4473, pay for your firearm and walk out the door. I can also go to the guy on the

street corner trying to sale his AK and hand him the money and walk away with my new firearm; private sales are as legal as eating dinner.


I base my comments on previous government intrusions into our lives, especially when it involves firearms. I have read the entire treaty, and not only does it mention "illicit

sales" and such, but also "unauthorized end users." Based on the language, who could be an unauthorized end user except citizens? It even states that the treaty does not

affect military or law enforcement weapons, as long as they are weapons owned by the STATE! I can read this document and put 2 and 2 together and get 4. I have

studied World history enough to know what the true meaning of this document is, and I have studied previous legislation and treaties that come from the United Nations to

know where they stand on Individual rights, and State sovereignty. This document is the beginning of the end for our Gun rights, and I know the government does not have

the peoples best interest in mind any longer. The government today does nothing unless it erodes our rights and gives them more power, so I do not trust the government.

We will see in time if my comments are baseless or if they turn out to be true.

Sorry my previous post is so unorganized. I have no idea why it posted the way it did.

beebobby said:

"Obama says it is time for gun control, and that he believes most gun owners would agree that we have no right to own firearms like the AK-47! It is getting real people, it is time we stand up and do something about this!"

He did not say this. Here is his exact quote, if anyone is interested in accuracy:

"I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation -- that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.

"But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals; that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn't be controversial. They should be common sense."

If we are going to raise the alarm about infringement, we can make our case without breitbarting.

Click to expand...

Answer me this folks. If Obama states that weapons such as the AK-47 do not belong on the streets of America, would you take that as meaning he doesn't want to infringe on our right to keep and bear these types of weapons, or that he does? I am pretty certain that it would mean he does want to remove these types of weapons from our collections. If he said they don't belong on our streets, then he said it is time for gun control, because they are on our streets, along with millions more just like them.

My Correspondence with Maine Sen. Susan Collins

This is a copy of an e-mail which I just sent to State Senator Collins of Maine.

Dear Ms. Collins,

I'm quite sure that you are aware of the critical issues at stake this election year.

IMHO, one that is of the utmost importance, at this time, is the peoples Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We as a Free Society are witnessing the blatant disregard for our Constitution & Bill of Rights from the top down.

Please take the time to make known to your associates that the Voters of America are watching how You All in D.C. are going to react, respond & DEFEND our Rights.

So, if you haven't done this already, please read the following information about a far reaching issue that has the ability, if allowed, to strangle the taxpayers & Patriots of this Great Nation of ours.

Thank You for your time !
Respectfully, God Bless You & God Bless the USA !!!
Scott

"The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty’s Criteria for Transfers Pose Problems for the U.S."

"The framework on which the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), currently being negotiated, is likely to be based is clear: It will set out criteria that signatories must apply to proposed arms transfers and require them to decide whether the proposed transfer poses a risk under any of those criteria. But these criteria are likely to be ill-defined, and the ATT's "checklist" model differs fundamentally from the "guidance" model that the U.S. currently employs. Worst of all, the ATT will enumerate criteria that will be easy to expand in ways that the U.S. cannot control. If the ATT is to exist, it should be based on a commitment by willing and democratic signatories to develop effective systems of border and export control."

"Key Points,

1 The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) will be finalized in late July, but its likely framework is already clear.

2 This framework rests on the effort to establish criteria by which the potential consequences of arms transfers must be assessed.

3 The ATT criteria are likely to be ill defined and to be incompatible in many ways with both the U.S. national interest and the criteria the U.S. currently employs.

4 The ATT’s model for using these criteria is incompatible with the model employed by the U.S. under Presidential Decision Directive 34, which dates from 1995.

5 Unless the ATT departs fundamentally and unexpectedly from its current track, it will, if ratified, require the U.S. to revise PDD 34.

6 Any ATT should be based on requiring effective border and export control by willing and democratic signatories"

Read More; link;;-> http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...ems-for-the-us


Her Reply;

Reply from Sen. Collins
Dear Scott58dh:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the proposed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. I appreciate your taking the time to do so.

Last year, I joined 44 of my colleagues in sending a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing our concerns about the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. Earlier this month, I joined 42 of my colleagues in a letter clearly stating our opposition to the ratification of any treaty that restricts constitutional rights granted to United States citizens by the Second Amendment.

Throughout my service in the Senate, I have consistently defended the Second Amendment. I oppose any treaty or legislation that would restrict the fundamental right to gun ownership for law-abiding citizens. I grew up in northern Maine, where responsible gun ownership is a part of the heritage of most families. Denying the rights of law-abiding citizens will not change the behavior of those intent on using firearms for criminal purposes.

Should this Treaty be sent to the Senate I will oppose its ratification.

Sincerely,

Susan M. Collins
United States Senator

Perhaps he is just being a president and attempting to provide comfort to the nation in the wake of a tragedy. Either way, AK-47s are automatic weapons and therefore already illegal under the NFA. He hasn't said anything that directly implies restrictions beyond those already in place. Am I naive enough to believe it can't happen. Not a chance. Infer what you will, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

I'm starting to feel as if the whole argument may be moot in light of the fact the UN has proven to be a toothless, inept organization that is seemingly incapable of enforcing anything.

AngryBodhi said:

You're entire argument is based in the assumption*** NOT, IT IS FACT, READ FOLLOWING INFO I'VE POSTED*** (you know what they say about assumptions right?) that UNAUTHORIZED END USERS = All private citizens of the state. Your own argument states "Notice it says nothing about individuals!" Nowhere did I see an exact definition of who qualifies as an "unauthorized end user" or even who gets to decide the definition. If anything, this is the part of the treaty that would worry me.

As for registration requirements, I don't know how things work in your neck of the woods, but every time I've purchased a firearm from a licensed FFL, they've run the necessary background check and registered my firearm before I was allowed to leave with my purchase. Business as usual. Whether or not you agree with this practice is one thing, but the treaty doesn't change that.

As to "Foreign police on our soil", the treaty merely establishes the existence of a unit to help participating states implement the provisions of the treaty. No where does it give the unit enforcement powers (it is the UN after all) nor does it mandate that states do anything but pay for the help. It also doesn't state who is on said unit or who gets to decide.

I have seen too many blogs and articles on this subject where the writer openly admits to having no knowledge of the exact wording of the treaty and then proceeds to state his opinion of what the treaty MIGHT say and uses his unfounded speculations to substantiate an argument that Obama is coming for your guns. I'm all for open political discourse but it seriously irks me when people willfully spread misinformation under the guise of substantiated fact. But I guess if it works for the antis it can work for us too right?

Click to expand...

Disinformation Continues as U.N. Arms Treaty Takes Shape

"For example, the most recent draft treaty includes import/export controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the "end user" of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an "end user" and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S.

And even if the U.S. never ratifies--or even signs--the treaty, many other nations will. The cost of complying with the treaty would drive up the price of imported firearms and probably force some companies to take their products off the U.S. market."


Read More;:arrow:http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ar...kes-shape.aspx

Obama, 04/16/08
"I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right."

Ten things every gun owner must know about Barack Obama.
; http://www.nrapvf.org/media/5802140/...heetinsert.pdf

Gun Control and the 2012 Presidential Election
;http://godfatherpolitics.com/4998/gu...er&utm_medium=


"Barack Obama has a long history of being anti-gun, an anti-gun owner and anti-Second Amendment. Here is a list of his stands on guns and gun control:
* Supported ban on assault weapons, mandatory waiting periods & background checks (1996)
* Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
* Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Keep guns out of inner cities–but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
* Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
* Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
* 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
* Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
* Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
* Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
* FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
* April 2008: “Bittergate” labeled Obama elitist. (Apr 2008)
* Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions. (Aug 2008)
* Confirms pledge to restore gun ban (Apr 2009)
* Nominates anti-gun Cass Sunstein to head Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (Apr 2009)
* Nominates anti-gun Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court (May 2009)
* Reverses position on treaty to regulate arms trade (Oct 2009)
* Busts plan to sell rifles to Americans (Mar 2010)
* Nominates anti-gun Elena Kagan for Supreme Court (May 2010)
* Supports UN Arms Treaty to include all conventional weapons (July 2010)
* Appoints anti-gun Greg Nickels to UN post (Sept 2010)
* Again busts plan to sell rifles to Americans Oct 2010)
* Nominates anti-gun Andrew Traver to head ATF (Nov 2010)
* Signed with anti-gun group IANSA at UN (Feb 2011)
* At UN debate on global gun restrictions (Feb 2011)
* Call for gun reform following Tucson shooting of US Rep Giffords (Mar 2011)
* Says he’s working on gun control under radar and trying to bypass Congress (Mar 2011)
* At UN final Arms Trade Treaty (July 2011)
* Oks administration’s first major gun regulation (July 2011)
* Says he won’t be bound by gun control ban in omnibus (Dec 2011)
* Cuts funds in half for armed pilot counter-terrorism proposal (Feb 2012)
* Sneaks anti-gun measure into 2013 budget proposal (Feb 2012)"

"So where does Mitt Romney really stand on gun control? To be honest, I’m not sure which side of the street he’s on, but I do know for certain that Barack Obama is on the wrong side of the street and if it comes down between the two, Obama is NOT my choice."

Mitt Romney - The Second Amendment,,,Last Updated: Jan 18, 2012
;http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Pro...ond_Amendment/

"Governor Romney has been supportive of the second amendment in the general sense while campaigning for the Presidency in 2012, but continued to support an assault weapons ban in the 2008 elections. Since that time, he has stated that he does not believe that the nation wide assault weapons ban should be re-instituted."

OBAMA; 08/04/09,
"What Obama said in San Francisco seemed to denigrate the very people he was struggling to win: "You go into some of these small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama told his donors. "Each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
The fund-raiser was closed to the press. No one from the Obama campaign even had a recording of the comments. Hillary had argued that she was the real champion of the beleaguered middle class, while Obama was the darling of the latte-drinkers. She said, "Senator Obama's remarks are elitist and out of touch. They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans." Obama tried to backpedal."

OP, way to take it out of context. If you read the whole document, you would see that it refers to international transactions, specifically the import and export of guns between countries (nation states), and records are not required about the end user sales, only tracking of arms shipments that transit national borders.

Once they actually have a treaty written, we can look at it and then have a cow, if need be. The intent of the negotiations is to stop the movement of arms into conflict zones and places where they are being used to violate human rights.

And this little gem is overlooked in every thread on the topic:
"Recognizing further the sovereign right of States to determine any regulation of internal transfers of arms and national ownership exclusively within their territory, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership."

nonameisgood said:

OP, way to take it out of context. If you read the whole document, you would see that it refers to international transactions, specifically the import and export of guns between countries (nation states), and records are not required about the end user sales, only tracking of arms shipments that transit national borders.

Once they actually have a treaty written, we can look at it and then have a cow, if need be. The intent of the negotiations is to stop the movement of arms into conflict zones and places where they are being used to violate human rights.

And this little gem is overlooked in every thread on the topic:
"Recognizing further the sovereign right of States to determine any regulation of internal transfers of arms and national ownership exclusively within their territory, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership."

Click to expand...

Actually records are required for the end user. Perhaps you should read into the document a little harder.

And notice how the "little gem" states "exclusively in their territory," and "internal transfers and national ownership." I don't know about you, but I don't own many firearms that are made completely in the United States, or in our territory. You can say what you want, but this is a major step to global disarmament, and will severely dampen our right to keep and bear arms. Most of the firearms in my safe are made and manufactured all or partly over seas, and this treaty will greatly restrict my right to these firearms, if not abolish it all together! A lot of you need to learn from the past, because it is being repeated as we speak. In ten years we can talk, and then we will see what has transpired.

AngryBodhi said:

Perhaps he is just being a president and attempting to provide comfort to the nation in the wake of a tragedy. Either way, AK-47s are automatic weapons and therefore already illegal under the NFA. He hasn't said anything that directly implies restrictions beyond those already in place. Am I naive enough to believe it can't happen. Not a chance. Infer what you will, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

I'm starting to feel as if the whole argument may be moot in light of the fact the UN has proven to be a toothless, inept organization that is seemingly incapable of enforcing anything.

Click to expand...

He was speaking about semi-automatic versions of the AK-47, not automatic versions. These weapons are not illegal either, if they are registered pre-86 firearms they are fully transferrable. Post-86 full-auto AKs are illegal, but not Pre-86! Semi-automatic versions are in millions of households across the United States, and so are semi-automatic ARs. They do belong in the hands of civillians, as do the fully automatic originals, but they have been unconstitutionally legislated from the hands of American citizens. Our Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed." Our government obviously does not know what infringed means.

beebobby said:

"Obama says it is time for gun control, and that he believes most gun owners would agree that we have no right to own firearms like the AK-47! It is getting real people, it is time we stand up and do something about this!"

He did not say this. Here is his exact quote, if anyone is interested in accuracy:

"I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation -- that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.

"But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals; that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn't be controversial. They should be common sense."

If we are going to raise the alarm about infringement, we can make our case without breitbarting.

Click to expand...

The OP wasn't directly quoting Obama (notice there were no quotes around what he said). But what the OP said is very much the core of what Obama said. Oh sure, you can play the semantics game of "well that isn't what I SAID" but it is very much what he meant. Saying that the belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals (duh); on the BATTLEFIELD, NOT ON THE STREETS OF OUR CITIES is very much saying that non-government people shouldn't own these items. After all, how exactly do you keep such weapons only on the battlefield and not on our streets if you don't ban them?

beebobby said:

I'm just basing my opinion on his record while in this office and what he has said when he has had a chance to speak to the country. I understand that no matter what he says, he will not change your opinion of what you think he means. He has not come for my guns or ammo and he has stated his support for the individual right to keep and bear arms as per the 2nd amendment. I am a citizen soldier, ready to defend this country, but I carry an AR-15, not a commie AK. I did not feel threatened by his latest statement.

Click to expand...

Really? Not threatened, eh? Obama has repeatedly stated he supports reinstatement of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004. That law classifies your AR-15 as an assault weapon.

Specifically, "On February 25, 2009, the newly sworn-in Attorney General, Eric Holder, repeated the Obama Administration's desire to reinstate the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[15] The mention came in response to a question, about 20 minutes into a joint press conference with DEA Acting Administrator Michele Leonhart, discussing efforts to crack down on Mexican drug cartels. Attorney General Holder said: "[...] there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons."[16]"

15. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1 ABC News: Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
16. http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15821 C-SPAN.org

Should Obama have his way, you can kiss your AR-15 good-bye, or at the very least look forward to registration and intense scrutiny.

.....conflict zones and places where they are being used to violate human rights.

Click to expand...

Who gets to define 'conflict zone' and 'used to violate human rights'? Aurora could logically be argued as a 'conflict zone' and the weapons were used to 'violate human rights'.

Sometime the knee-jerk reaction is the right action to take. Gotta trust your gut feeling sometimes.....unless of course you are a loony-li-.

Liberals are liberals first and foremost even to the detriment of their own interests.

I think you will not find many politicians who oppose an assault weapons ban, simply because it makes them look tough on crime, reasonable or acceptable to both sides, and they can say either "I only banned guns people don't need" or "I held the ban to only certain weapons, but they wanted them all" or "we took those extremely dangerous guns out of the hand of people who can't be trusted". It's politics.

At the risk of quoting a liberal's liberal on this site, and getting hammered for it, "just jingle the leash and the [uneducated and ill-informed] people will jump in the car and we can take them wherever we want."

KYGlockster said:

Article 11
Reporting, Record Keeping and Transparency

"Each State Party shall MAINTAIN RECORDS in accordance with its national laws and regardless of the items referred to in Article 2, Paragraph A, with regards to conventional arms authorization or exports, and where feasible of those items transferred to their territory as the final destination, or that are authorized to transit or transship their territory, respectively.

Such records may contain: quantity, value, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), recipient State(s), and END USERS as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or consistent with other international commitments applicable to the State Party."

Click to expand...

Registration alone is reason enough for freedom loving Americans to reject this dangerous "treaty." Why the hell would we sign a treaty with the UN to begin with? They haven't defeated us (yet) and we don't need them. We are a free, prosperous people and any more dealing with this globalist organization can only limit our freedom and prosperity. The UN needs to leave our soil and we need to treat that organization as the enemy it is. No more funding, no more cooperation, and no more capitulating. America urgently needs to do this before the country, as we know and love it, is dismantled and unrecognizable. The United States of old, or perhaps of legend(?), would have done this by law or by force already. Nothing positive and constitutional comes from that den of vipers. Our government behaves like a crack addict seeking it's next fix from the dealer. It's past time for rehabilitation... way past time. The government for the people, by the people, and of the people needs some tough love, methinks.